Technical and Socio-economic Study of Using Small Ponds Water

Technical and Socio-economic Study of Using Small Ponds Water Harvesting
Systems for Supplemental Irrigation in Gumara-Maksegnit Watershed, Ethiopia
ARBO FEYISA BOBASA
August 2013
i
Technical and Socio-economic Study of Using Small Ponds Water Harvesting System for
Supplemental Irrigation in Gumara-Maksegnit Watershed, Ethiopia
Arbo Feyisa Bobasa
Internship report submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in
Environmental Sciences specialization in Integrated Water Management at Wageningen
University and Research Centre, The Netherlands
August 2013
ii
Acknowledgement
First of all I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors at Wageningen University Dr.
Saskia Werners and Dr. Fons Jaspers for their critical comments and guidance during the
internship work. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Wondimu Bayu for his
comments on the proposal phase and for his presence in all data collection periods; personal
advises and monitoring my work on the field. He was always ready to help me in getting the
necessary information as well as arranging the logistic needed to undertake this internship work.
I would like to say thank you to Dr. Feras Ziadat and Dr. Muhhammed Bouforah for their
comments on the proposal of this internship work. I would extend my gratitude to ICARDA
project for giving me financial support to undertake this study. Overall I would like to say thank
you to all the staffs of Gondar agricultural research center who were always ready to help me.
Finally I would like to owe respect and sincere thanks to all farmers who are willing to
participate in this study by giving me their precious time to respond to the interview questions.
iii
Abstract
The aim of this study is to calculate the volume of water produced by the selected runoff areas,
assess farmers’ perceptions and cost and benefits of using small ponds water harvesting
structures, in Gumara-Maksegnit watershed, Gondar, Ethiopia. Delineation of the runoff areas
was done by using ArcGIS and ArcSAWT10. Economic roles of the water harvesting structures
were determined by comparing costs and benefits of using the water harvesting ponds and
supplemental irrigation. Semi-structured interview was employed to see perception of the
farmers about using small ponds water harvesting systems. The payback period for cultivating Swiss
chard is higher than all other vegetables used in the supplemental irrigation with smallest period was
calculated for pepper followed by carrot. This study found that 93% of the farmers who do not have a
pond have positive attitude towards the existing ponds and 86% need to have their own pond. Farmers
who own a pond reported that they have benefited from using small ponds water harvesting system for
supplemental irrigation on their farm lands. The calculated volume of water from runoff areas of Abera’s
pond, Amabachew’s pond, Muluken’s pond and Weretaw’s pond were found to 6775.31, 12214.35,
16912.22, and 45580.98 cubic meters respectively. The calculated volume of water is surplus as
compared to the constructed pond capacity. This implies that, enough runoff could be produced from the
runoff areas and additional ponds could be constructed based on farmer’s willingness and land holding
size.
iv
Table Contents
Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ iv
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background and justification ................................................................................................................. 4
1.1.1.
The ICARDA-project ................................................................................................................ 5
1.2. Problem statement .................................................................................................................................. 7
1.3. Objectives of the study........................................................................................................................... 8
1.3.1. General objective ............................................................................................................................ 8
1.3.2. Specific objectives .......................................................................................................................... 8
1.4. Theoretical and conceptual framework .................................................................................................. 9
1.5. Research questions ............................................................................................................................... 11
1.5.1. General research questions............................................................................................................ 11
1.5.2. Specific research questions ........................................................................................................... 11
2. Research methodology ............................................................................................................................ 12
2.1. The study area .................................................................................................................................. 12
2.2. Data collection methods ................................................................................................................... 14
2.3. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 17
3. Result ...................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1. Delineation of the runoff areas......................................................................................................... 20
3.2. Volume of water produced from the runoff areas............................................................................. 22
3.3. Cost benefit analysis ............................................................................................................................ 24
3.3.1. Comparisons of costs and benefits ................................................................................................ 24
3.4. Farmer’s perception ......................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.1. Perceptions of farmers who do not have a pond ....................................................................... 26
3.4.2. Perceptions of farmers who have a pond .................................................................................. 27
4. Discussions ............................................................................................................................................. 28
4.1. Runoff area delineation, area determination and estimation of water volume ................................. 28
4.2. Socio economic aspects of using small ponds water harvesting structures ..................................... 29
4.3. Water harvesting systems (small ponds) in context of integrated water management ..................... 29
5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. 31
v
References ................................................................................................................................................... 32
Annex-1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Interview questions format ..................................................................................................................... 35
Annex-2 ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Reflection report ..................................................................................................................................... 40
vi
1. Introduction
The world population is estimated to grow by 2.9 billion people over the next 50 years, of which
95 % will occur in developing countries. The most rapid population growth occurs in povertystricken regions, with a high share of rural communities where rain-fed agriculture forms the
dominant basis for livelihood security. Water scarcity and low crop yields are the main problems
of arid and semi-arid regions (dry areas) of Africa where over 80% of rural livelihoods depend
on land and water resources (Rosegrant, Cai et al. 2002; Barron 2004).
People in dry areas face multifaceted problems related to water resources availabilities for crop
and livestock productions because of irregular rainfall in this areas and much of the water is soon
lost as surface runoff (Critchley and Siegert 1991; Sharma 2002). High rate of evapotranspiration is also another factor for the loss of water in drier areas (Boers 1994). This has
many implications for food security and rural livelihoods of the peoples in developing countries
in general and Ethiopia in particular.
According to (Awulachew et al., 2007), “Ensuring food security in areas with a high-population
pressure and fragile resource conditions such as the semi-arid highlands of Ethiopia represents a
great deal of challenge. One of the challenges is to alleviate the most limiting factors to crop
production: moisture stress and soil fertility problems. The national policy on development and
food-security and the research and extension support should therefore give due attention to these
problems. Increasing agricultural productivity in Ethiopia is a means both to improve the
livelihoods of rural people and the sustainability of the economy.” Poor performance of
agricultural sector, mainly due to erratic and uncertain rainfall, as well as poor water
management strategies make the rural household of the country no to withstand the declines in
their income. Rainfall is erratic and unpredictable by nature and has been below average which
ultimately results in dry spells leading to wider gaps in food security since 1970s (Warren and
Khogali, 1992)
For a country like Ethiopia in which the majority of the livelihood depends on rain-fed
agriculture (Devereux and Sussex 2000; Awulachew 2006), looking for possibilities to enhance
the potential of rain-fed agriculture and wise use of water resources is essential to improve the
1
rural livelihoods and achieve socio-economic development. More specifically, the ability of
countries to achieve sufficient food production especially in dry areas, is closely linked to
sustainable management of water and land resources (Devereux and Sussex 2000; Rockström,
Karlberg et al. 2010).
Water harvesting schemes has the potential to reduce risk of crop failure during moisture deficit
periods when implemented and managed properly (Awulachew et. al 2007). According to
Girmay T, (2011), “the challenges in rainwater management are therefore related to both storage
and efficient utilization of the collected water. The same author outlines that "Proper water
harvesting systems require development of appropriate rainwater storage and utilization
technologies, policy reforms, infrastructural interventions and re-organization of the social
structure of farming communities”.
Integrated water resources management and conservation activities at watershed levels (e.g.
harvesting and storage of runoff to supplement crop water requirement during water stress
months) is becoming an important practice to alleviate poverty and food insecurity in drier areas
of Ethiopia. Developing irrigation potential through improving the existing traditional and
modern irrigation is an essential requirement to overcome the problem of food security and
poverty. Besides this fact, irrigation in general and supplemental irrigation in particular have the
capacity to play a central role in increasing the potential of rain-fed-agriculture and optimizing
crop yield by supplying water during moisture deficit seasons in dry areas (Oweis and Hachum
2006; Oweis and Hachum 2009). The uneven spatial and temporal occurrence and distribution of
rainfall must be dealt with effective water resource development planning and appropriate water
harvesting technologies. To this end, water harvesting can play a key role in the attempt to
increase water productivity and improve rain-fed crop yields if implemented carefully by
considering the related socio-economic and technical issues (Oweis and Hachum 2009).
Socio-economic and technical questions such as: farmers’ perceptions of using small ponds water
harvesting system, the costs and benefits of using the system, total volume of water that can be
produced from the runoff areas which contribute water to the ponds, total arable land that can be
2
irrigated by using water harvested by the ponds, types of crops which are best suited to
supplemental irrigation in the study area, are the basic research questions of this study.
The aim of this study is to calculate runoff water volume produced from four selected runoff
areas, assess farmers’ perceptions and costs-benefits of using small ponds water harvesting
structures, in Gumara-Maksegnit watershed, Gondar, Ethiopia as part of research project
conducted by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA):
“Unlocking the Potential of Rainfed Agriculture in Ethiopia for Improved Rural Livelihoods
(UNPRA, Ethiopia)”.
The report is organized as follows

Section 1.1 presents the background and justification of the research.

The Objectives of the study are presented in section 1.2 and 1.3 respectively.

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the study together with research questions are
presented respectively in section 1.4 and 1.5.

Sections 2, presents research Methodology.

Section 3, presents Results while section 4 and 5 presents discussions and collusions
respectively
3
1.1. Background and justification
Water availability and water use efficiency will determine the success of agriculture in dry land
areas. In sub-Saharan Africa over 60% of the population depends on rainfed subsistence
economies accounting for 30-40 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of a country. Therefore
if increased agricultural production is anticipated in dry areas, integrated water resource
management should be one of the many strategies to attain sustainable natural resources
development to achieve food security objectives of the nation.
Water and household food security are closely related. Access to optimum water increases
agricultural yields, providing more food and a better income in rural areas, which are home to
three-quarters of the hungry people in developing countries (Devereux and Sussex 2000; Bewket
2003). The volume of water allocated to agriculture and water management decisions at all level
will determine whether African societies achieve economic and social development and
environmental sustainability (Bates, Kundzewicz et al. 2008).
The fact that sufficient food production is one of the main challenges for mankind in this century
is indisputable. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) estimates that, by 2025, cereal
production will have to increase by 38 percent to meet world food demands. However, this
growth in cereal production is challenged by water scarcity in the form of moisture deficit
specifically in the drier regions (Seckler, D. et al. 1999). Other important issues to prove this fact
is that, the availability of water for crop production especially in dry areas is limited, affecting
agricultural production (crop and livestock production). This calls for harvesting water whether
through household water harvesting structures, community-based ponds, wells which help the
farmers to store, manage and utilize the rarely available water during water deficit periods.
Water harvesting can improve agriculture by harvesting rain water’s runoff to be used for
irrigation purposes. It was found that over 50% of lost water can be recovered at a very little cost
(Oweis, Hachum et al. 1999). Research conducted by ICARDA in northern Syria shows that
there is a substantial increase in crop yields in response to supplemental irrigation (Oweis,
Hachum et al. 1999; Oweis, Prinz et al. 2001).
4
Development and implementation of water harvesting techniques, mainly in dry area is one of
the main strategic choices of the government of Ethiopia to achieve food security of the poor
rural households. For example, out of ETB 100 million allocated to all the regions of the country
by the federal government, much of the money is used for water harvesting and water resources
development activities (construction of individual households’ ponds and cisterns) through the
guidance of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA, 2002).
“The overall objectives of water harvesting programs were to increase agricultural land
productivity through double cropping and yield of rainfed crops, and minimize the risk of crop
failure in drought prone areas and supplying drinking water for human and animal
consumption”. Despite all this efforts made by the government, the water harvesting program did
not reach its anticipated objectives because of many social and technical problems related to
planning, design and implementation of water harvesting structures in the country. For example,
“a total of 14,976 households’ water harvesting structures were counted in the Amhara region of
Ethiopia in 2004. Of this, 87% were based on runoff while the remainder was hand-dug wells.
During this inventory, according to Awulachew, S. B. (2006), only 22% of the water harvesting
structures was functional”. This indicates the significance of studying the socio-technical aspect
of water harvesting system in the region.
According to the preliminary baseline survey of Gumara-Maksegnit watershed, moisture stress in
the crop growing season has been identified as the major factor limiting crop productivity. Thus,
water harvesting and supplemental irrigation activities were conducted by ICARDA- project
with the aim of improving crop productivity through harvesting runoff during the rainy season
and supplementing the crop’s water demand at the time of water stress.
1.1.1. The ICARDA-project
ICARDA stand for International Center for Agricultural research in the Dry Areas. The mission
of ICARDA project is “to contribute to the improvement of livelihoods of the resource-poor
regions in dry areas, by enhancing food security and alleviating poverty through research and
partnerships to achieve sustainable increases in agricultural productivity and income, while
ensuring the efficient and more equitable use and conservation of natural resources”. With
5
complex problems of the rainfed agro-ecosystems in Ethiopia, ICARDA has developed a project
entitled ‘Unlocking the potential of Rainfed Agriculture in Ethiopia for improved rural
livelihoods’ to be implemented in Amhara region in partnership with National Agricultural
Research System (NARS).
The underlying aim of the project is to improve the livelihood of the rural communities in the
rainfed agro-ecosystem of the Amhara region. This will be reached by sustainably improving
agricultural productivity and conserve the ecosystem resources by the integration of affordable
and appropriate technologies in a favorable socioeconomic environment. The project has selected
a typical watershed (Gumara-Maksegnit) that represents the rainfed system and is conducting
improved crop and agronomic management, forestry, soil and water conservation, and water
harvesting and supplemental irrigation research activities within the large scope of integrated
watershed management.
Consequently, five water harvesting ponds, with water carrying capacity ranging from (84 - 129
m3), were excavated with farmers’ participation. The purpose of water harvesting ponds was to
accumulate runoff water from the runoff areas located above the ponds. The harvested runoff
water was intended to be used for supplemental irrigation purposes. Capacity of the ponds was
established by researchers from Gondar Agricultural Research Center (GARC) during pond site
selection. The water harvesting ponds are constructed for experimental purposes and to see if
water harvesting and supplemental irrigation activities can be adopted by communities for better
livelihood. Before construction of the ponds, meeting with farmers and choosing the farmer who
will accept the ponds to be constructed on his land and take care of them took place. As it was
not possible to construct a pond for all the farmers in the study area only five water harvesting
ponds was constructed and experimental activities has been taking place since 2011. After three
years the project wanted to know the perception of farmers, volume of runoff produced
cost/benefits of using water harvesting ponds for supplemental irrigation and water balance
analysis for ponds. It is based on these facts that I chose water harvesting ponds as unit of my
research in this study.
6
1.2. Problem statement
Low crop yield due to limited water availability is one of the main problems in dry areas of
Ethiopia; making rainfed agriculture a risky enterprise. Furthermore, shortage of soil moisture in
the dry rainfed areas occurs during the most sensitive growth stages of crop production resulting
in low crop yields. In this case, enhancing the potential of rainfed agriculture, which is the main
economic stay of the rural livelihood, is one of the many approaches to improve low crop yield
to achieve food security.
In dry areas, irrigation and efficient water harvesting techniques such as pond water harvesting
systems should be implemented to maximize water productivity. Water harvesting for
supplemental irrigation have a capacity to increase agricultural production and water
productivity. According to (Oweis 1997), “supplemental irrigation (SI) is a highly efficient
practice with great potential for increasing agricultural production and improving livelihoods in
the dry rainfed area”. It is based on this concept that five water harvesting ponds were
constructed on five participating farmers’ field to harvest runoff so that the collected water will
be used in the water shortage periods to supplement plants with required amount of water.
However, information regarding technical (volume of water, area to be irrigated) and socioeconomic issues such as the costs and benefits of using the system are lucking. Therefore, the
aim of this study is to fill in these gaps which are very important for timely socio-economic
interventions and future scaling-up of the water harvesting schemes for improved management of
the water resources and increased agricultural productivity in Gumara-Maksegnit watershed and
to the surrounding areas.
7
1.3. Objectives of the study
1.3.1. General objective

To study the socio-economic and technical aspects of using small ponds water harvesting
system in Gumara-Maksegnit watershed
1.3.2. Specific objectives
 To assess perceptions of farmers about small ponds water harvesting systems used for
supplemental irrigation

To analyze the cost and benefits of using small ponds water harvesting system

To calculate total volume of water produced by individual runoff areas contributing water to
the ponds
8
1.4. Theoretical and conceptual framework
In this section outlines the concept and definitions of water harvesting and supplemental
irrigation based on relevant literatures.
According to Girmay T., (2007), “Historical records show that water harvesting has been
practiced in Ethiopia for agricultural purpose since 560 BC. In recent history, the practice is
more common in the lowlands of Ethiopia mainly for human and livestock watering”. Water
harvesting is defined as “the process of concentrating rainfall as runoff from a larger areas for
use in a smaller target area”(Oweis, Hachum et al. 1999). It is collection of runoff for
productive uses. It is an old art practiced in the past in many parts of North America, Middle
East, North Africa, china, and India. According to (Oweis, Hachum et al. 1999), there are three
distinguishing differences between the process of water harvesting and irrigation. First, the
“catchment” area is contiguous with the benefiting target area which is relatively small; second,
the application to the target area is essentially uncontrolled hence the objective is to capture as
much water as possible and store it within the reach of plants in the soil profile of a cultivated
area or into some types of reservoir; third, water harvesting can be used to concentrate rainfall
for purposes other than crop production.
Supplemental irrigation is defined as the application of a limited amount of water to the crop
when rainfall fails to provide sufficient water for plants growth to increase and stabilize yields
(Oweis, Hachum et al. 1999).
According to (Oweis, Hachum et al. 1999), “characteristics of supplemental irrigation in rainfed
area include the following. First, water is applied to rainfed crops which are normally produced
without irrigation. Second, water is applied only when rainfall is inadequate, because rainfall is
prime source of water for rainfed crops. Third, the amount and timing of supplemental are not
meant to provide water stress conditions over the growing season, but to provide enough water
during the cortical stages of crop growth to ensure optimal yield in terms of yield per unit of
water”.
9
The two components of water harvesting techniques proposed by (Oweis, Hachum et al. 1999)
are:
1. Runoff farming water harvesting techniques.
This is a technique of water harvesting when the collected runoff is diverted directly into the
cropped area during the rainfall event in which ridges, borders, or dikes are placed around
cropped area to retain the water on the soil surface. This technique further split into microcatchment runoff farming, mini-catchment runoff farming and macro catchment runoff farming.
2. Supplemental irrigation water harvesting techniques
This is a process of collecting runoff and storing it for later uses in which surface storage
facilities ranging from on-farm pond or tank to a small dam constructed across the flow for the
purpose runoff collection. The components of water harvesting techniques are illustrated in
Figure.1.
Figure 1. Classification of water harvesting techniques
Water
harvesting
Runoff farming
water
harvesting
Microcatchment
runoff
farming
Mini catchment
runoff
farming
Supplemental
irrigation water
harvesting
Macrocatchment
runoff
farming
Source (Oweis, Hachum et al. 1999).
10
1.5. Research questions
1.5.1. General research questions

What are the socio-technical aspects and economic benefits of using small ponds water
harvesting systems for supplemental irrigation
1.5.2. Specific research questions
 How much volume of water can be harvested from the selected runoff areas?
 What are the costs and benefits of using small ponds water harvesting?
 What do the farmers’ think of using small ponds water harvesting structures? Do they like it?
11
2. Research methodology
2.1. The study area
The Gumara-Maksegnit watershed is located in the North West part of Ethiopia in Amhara
Regional State; south Gondar zone (Figure. 2). It is situated to the south east of Lake Tana and
covers the drainage area of about 1464 km2. The watershed is bordered by Denkeze and
Zanetera Kebele in the north, east Belessa woreda in the east Embachera Kebele in the south
Denezeze Kebele in the west. It is located between 12025’23N and 12024’54N latitude and
037040’18E and 037036’55E longitude covering an area of 56km2.Altitude ranges between 1953
– 2851 m.a.s.l.
Figure. 2 Location map of Gumara-Maksegnit watershed (including study sites)
The major landforms of the watershed include flat, gently sloping to undulating plains, hills and
mountains (Awulachew, 2007). The upper and middle parts of the catchment are characterized by
mountainous, highly rugged and dissected topography with steep slopes and the lower part is
characterized by valley floors with flat to gentle slopes. According to the same author, “Elevation
in the watershed ranges from 1780 to 3678m above sea level, with a mean elevation of 2200
m.a.s.l.” More than three quartet of the watershed is intensively cultivated. According to FAO
classification system, six soil types namely. Hapic Luvisols, Chromic Luvisols, lithic leptosols,
12
eutric vertisols, eutric Fluvisols and chromic cambisol are the common soil types in the
watershed. (BCEOM 1998; MoARD 2004; WWDSE 2007),
Rainfall over the watershed is uni-modal and most of the rainfall is concentrated in the season
extending from June to September, with a virtual drought occurring from November through
April. The four wettest months contribute 85 percent of the total annual rainfall. The dry season
(October to May) has total rainfall of about 15% of the mean annual rainfall (WWDSE 2007).
This study takes place on four reasonably delineated runoff areas contributing water to the outlet
(where ponds were excavated) inside Gumara-Maksegnit watershed for evaluation of the
technical and socio-economic aspects of using small ponds water harvesting systems. The names
of the delineated runoff areas are runoff area for Abera’s pond, runoff area for Ambachew’s
pond, runoff area for Muluken’s pond and runoff area for Weretaw’s pond. The first three
runoff areas are very close to each other (about 250m). Runoff area for Woretaw’s pond is about
2km far from the rest of the three runoff areas.
13
2.2. Data collection methods
In this study both primary and secondary sources of data collection methods were used to gather
the necessary information in order to answer the research questions (See figure 3). Observation,
interviewing, personal records, publications and earlier researches have been employed as
data collection methods for this study.
Methods of data collection
Secondary sources
Primary sources
Documents
Observation
-
Interviewing
Questionnaire
Earlier research
Census
Personal records
Publications
Figure 3. Methods of data collection (Modified from (Ranjit K., 2011)); bold text - shows the methods that have
been used in this study.
In order to delineate and determine areas of the runoff areas; data about geographic coordinate
points and elevation of the runoff areas was collected using GPS aided total station instrument. A
total station is an electronic/optical instrument used in modern surveying and building
construction. The total station instrument used for collecting coordinate data was checked for its
accuracy before the data was being collected. Coordinate points was preferred to be collected by
using Total station because Total station makes less error (+/-3mm) as compared to pocket GPS.
However, in some cases (example for Ambachews’s runoff area) geographic coordinate points
data was collected by using only pocket GPS instrument with error of +/- 3m after we learn that
the data for Ambachew’s runoff area was missing and was not possible to get the Total station
very soon.
14
Establishing the first bench mark and checking the total station for accuracy
Data about farmer’s perception was collected by using semi-structured interview of the farmers
in the study area. Interviewing is a commonly used method of collecting information from
people. According to Monetto et al., (1986), “an interview involves an interviewer reading
questions to respondents and recording their answers”. Two versions of the interview were
made. The first version was intended for farmers who own water harvesting ponds. Whereas, the
second version was intended for farmers who do not have water harvesting ponds on their
farmlands. The interview questions were translated from English to the local language
(Amharaic) and farmer’s response was recorded.
Interviewed farmers was contacted by randomly selecting farmers who are on the field, going to
farmer’s house and interviewing them and also by appointment (for example, one of the pond
owner farmer was contacted by appointment as he was neither in the study area nor in his home).
He went to monasteries in the near area to be treated for his sickness. I have contacted this
farmer and interviewed him three weeks after I have interviewed all other farmers.
After completing interviewing individual farmer, a complete summary of their response to the
interview questions was made to have a general perception about using small ponds water
harvesting structures. Data about cost of pond excavation and installation of drip irrigation
15
system were collected from ICARDA- Babhir dar coordination office and Gondar agricultural
research center.
Questionnaire is a list of questions, to which the answers are recorded by respondents (Burns,
1997). The only difference between an interview and questionnaire is that in the former it is the
interviewer who asks the questions (and if necessary explains them) and records the respondent’s
replies and in the latter replies are recorded by themselves (Ranjit K., 2011). My choice to use
interviewing than questionnaires is due to the fact that farmers in the study area cannot read or
write as they are less educated or never had elementary educations.
Observation is a purposeful, systematic and selective way of watching and listening to an
interaction or phenomenon as it takes place. In this study observations of the ponds took place
during preliminary field survey of the study area.
a)
b)
Interviewing farmer on the fields (a and b). Farmer in picture (b) was rushing to his farming
activity and interviewing was done on stands.
16
c)
d)
Interviewing female headed farmers without a pond(c) and farmer whom her husband have a
pond(d)
In total 35 farmers was interviewed out of which 3 farmers were female. All of the farmers who
own a pond live in the upstream part of the area where runoff areas was delineated for this study.
All of the four runoff areas contributing water to the ponds were found in two separate subwatersheds; namely, Aba kaloye and Das Dinzaz sub-watersheds.
2.3. Data Analysis
2.3.1. Farmer’s perceptions
To assess farmers’ perception about the water harvesting ponds and supplemental irrigation
activities, information collected through semi-structured interview were used and explained to
answer the specific research question. Summary of the responses which was done at the end of
each interview was used to see farmer’s opinion about the ponds and supplemental irrigation
activities.
Table 1. Total number of farmers interviewed per selected sub-watersheds.
Sub-watersheds
No
farmers Age
interviewed
range
Sex
M
F
Own
Do
not
ponds
ponds
Aba kaloye
19
31-54
17
2
4
15
Das Dinzaz
16
26-59
16
0
1
15
Total
35
33
2
5
30
17
own
2.3.2. Runoff areas and volume of water produced
In order to determine runoff areas the first step was to delineate the runoff areas contributing
water to the ponds. Delineation was done by using Arc-SAWT GIS software and geographic
coordinate points and elevation data as input. Areas of the runoff areas were then calculated
from digital-elevation model produced from the geographic coordinate points collected from
individual runoff areas and elevation.
The purpose of a given water harvesting structure is basically to collect and accumulate runoff.
The volume of water collected as runoff will be used for supplemental irrigation purposes.
Therefore, the volume of water that is collected by a pond is the same as the direct runoff
produced from nearby runoff areas. In order to calculate the volume of runoff a simple formula
relating mean annual rainfall, area and runoff coefficient was used, as described below.
…………................................................ (1)
Where
,
is mean annual rainfall (mm/year),
is area in m2
determined by ArcSwat GIS software using geographic coordinate points and elevation data as
input and
is unit less runoff coefficient which was adopted from literature based on land use
(Chowet al., 1988), to be 0.25. Runoff coefficient in other words is a portion of rainfall which
becomes runoff. Mean annual rainfall was calculated form daily rainfall record obtained from
rainfall recording station found in Aba-kaloye sub-watershed. All of the runoff areas are very
close to the rainfall recording station established by ICARDA (the furthest was Weretaw’s runoff
area which is approximately 2.5 km from the station). Therefore, the same mean annual rainfall
was used to calculate the runoff volume. The calculated mean annual rainfall in the area was
found to be 1170 mm.
2.3.3. Costs and benefits of using water harvesting ponds for supplemental irrigation
Cost and benefits analysis of using the water harvesting structures was made by listing all costs
and estimated benefits (from 18m*8m experimental plot data of the year 2012). Estimated
benefit was calculated by multiplying mean annual yield by average market price. Annual Yield
and average price data was obtained from experimental plot carried out by Gondar agricultural
research center for the year 2012. Payback period was calculated by dividing the total cost by the
18
total benefit. Total cost of pond excavation and full installations of the drip irrigation was
obtained from ICARDA-Bahir Dar coordination office (see Table 2).
……………………………………………..….. (2)
Where,
- is Total cost,
- Total benefit and
19
is payback period.
3. Result
This section will present the major outputs of the study which includes delineation of the runoff
areas together with volume of water produced, cost and benefit analysis and farmer’s perception
of using water harvesting ponds for supplemental irrigation.
3.1. Delineation of the runoff areas
Four runoff areas were delineated and their respective area was determined. Figure (3a, 3b, 3c,
and 3d) shows the map of four runoff areas contributing water to ponds constructed at the outlet.
them.
Figure 3a. Map of Abera’s pond runoff area. Total area was found to be 23101.92 m2 making it the
smallest runoff area of all others.
20
Figure 3b. Map of Ambachew’s pond runoff area. The estimated area was found to be 41758.46 m2.
Figure 3c. Map of Muluken’s pond runoff area. The estimated area for Muluken’s pond runoff area is
57819.57 m2.
21
Figure 3d. Map of Weretaw’s pond runoff area. The estimated area for Weretaw’s pond runoff area was
found to be 155832.35.
3.2. Volume of water produced from the runoff areas
Table 2. Presents total volume of water produced by individual runoff areas
Name
Pond
Runoff volume
capacity
Runoff area (m2)
(m3)
(m3)
Abera’s pond runoff area
84
23101.92
6757.31
Ambachew’s pond runoff area
129
41758.46
12214.35
Muluken’s pond runoff area
84
57819.57
16912.22
Woretaw’s pond runoff area
129
155832.35
45580.98
Pond capacity was taken from a report from Gondar Agricultural research center (GARC).
Runoff volume was calculated based on equation (1) by taking 1170 and 0.25 as mean annual
rainfall (mm/year) and runoff coefficient respectively. As it can be seen from Table 2, the
estimated runoff produced from the runoff area is much higher than capacity of the ponds which
was constructed below the sub-watersheds. This implies the possibility of constructing additional
ponds as there is surplus of runoff that can be harvested and utilized for desired purposes.
22
This also shows as if there is no mismatch between potential runoff produced from the runoff
area and capacity of ponds constructed below the runoff areas.
23
3.3. Cost benefit analysis
3.3.1. Comparisons of costs and benefits
Table 3. Cost of pond excavation and installation of drip irrigation system
No
Item
Qty
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Pond construction
Excavation
Geomembrane
Geomembrane
lining wage
PVC Pipe
Barel and its stand
Barel
Wood for stand
Nail
Construction wage
Silt trap
construction
Building block
Cement
Sand
Construction wage
Pedal pump
Drip system
Fittings (17 types)
Laterals
Driller = 1400
Driller bit = 300
Installation wage
Abera
Unit
Total
price
Cost
(Birr)
(Birr)
123
1
20
30
Qty
Ambachew
Unit
Total
price
Cost
(Birr)
(Birr)
136
1
10
30
30
3690
4760
600
1
111
111
2
360
110
3qt
12.5
550
1
358
Qty
Melkam
Unit
Total
price
Cost
(Birr)
(Birr)
124
1
20
30
30
4080
260
300
1
111
111
720
325
75
100
2
360
1375
1650
130
500
358
110
3
12.5
550
1
358
Qty
Weretaw
Unit
Total
price
Cost
(Birr)
(Birr)
79.5
1
20
30
30
3720
4760
600
1
111
111
720
325
75
100
2
360
1375
1650
130
500
358
110
3
12.5
550
1
358
Qty
Muluken
Unit
Total
price
Cost
(Birr)
(Birr)
79
1
10
30
30
2385
4760
600
30
2370
4500
300
1
111
111
1
111
111
720
325
75
100
2
360
720
325
75
100
-
-
-
1375
1650
130
500
358
110
3
12.5
550
110
3
12.5
550
1
358
1375
1650
130
500
358
1
358
1375
1650
130
500
358
5285
2640
5285
2640
5283
2640
5285
2640
-
90
22419
90
17999
90
22439
90
21104
90
11384
The investment cost is valid for 5 years, Source (ICARDA-Bahir Dar coordination office).
24
Table 4. Benefits and payback periods of different vegetables cultivated by supplementing
water from the ponds
Name
Item
Yield/kg/ha/
Price
Benefits
Total costs
Payback
yr
(Birr)/kg
( Birr/ha
(Birr)/5yr
period(
/yr)
years)
Muluken’s Pond
Pepper
16650
8
133200
11384
0.085
Abera’s pond
Swiss chard
32590
2
65180
22419
0.34
Ambachew’s pond
Cabbage
30150
2.50
75375
17999
0.23
Weretaw’s pond
Carrot
28330
4
113320
21104
0.17
Table 4, above shows calculations of the total benefits, total costs and pay back periods. Total
costs did not include cost of weeding and other maintenance costs.
Cost of maintenance
especially for geomembrane lining is very high. It was assumed that a fully excavated pond
installed with drip irrigation will last for at-least five years. However, that is not true in reality.
The geomemebrane linings have been changed each year (cost of replacing one geommerane
lining for one pond is about 5000 Birr). Payback period was calculated by using equation (2).
Less payback period means the system is more beneficial because it earns higher benefit. As it
can be seen from Table 4 above, the payback period for cultivating Swiss chard is higher than all
other vegetables with smallest period was calculated for pepper followed by carrot. A longer
payback period shows that a farmer has to wait for a long time to get back cost of the water
harvesting and supplemental irrigation systems. Hence calculations of the payback period did not
include costs such as weeding costs and costs of maintenance, values of the payback periods
should be interpreted very carefully.
25
3.4. Farmer’s perception
3.4.1. Perceptions of farmers who do not have a pond
Up to 93% (28 out of 30) of the farmers who do not have a pond on their farm lands showed
positive attitude towards the constructed ponds in their neighborhoods. They replied yes to a
question “do you think the ponds are useful?” Regarding the need to have a pond on their
farmlands, respondents in this group, need to have a pond on their farmlands. Out of 30 farmers
26 (86%) replied yes to the question (do you want to have a pond of your own?)”. Nevertheless,
all of them except one farmer do not want to cover the costs of the water harvesting ponds and
supplemental irrigations. Even the farmer who said “yes” I can cover the costs of the water
harvesting ponds explained his answer as follows. “It is of course difficult for me to have such
amount of money to investment but I will ask the government to cover some of the costs, if I am
sure that I cannot afford the cost”. They explained that they need to have a pond close to their
home because it is very easy to protect the pond from damage, and easy to take care of the
produces which will otherwise be affected by animals. Contrary to their willingness to have a
pond on their farmland they are not willing to cover all the associated costs. They said that they
cannot afford to pay the costs as they believe that they will never have such amount of money
and government should help them in covering the cost of excavation and installation of the drip
irrigation system. However, when we see the calculated payback periods in table 3 above
irrigations seems to be economically feasible in the study area.
This group of farmers also believes that, farmers who have a pond are economically more
benefited from having a pond on their farmlands. However, one farmer explained his concern
about the pond by saying “……… ponds are useful but the amount of water accumulated in the
ponds is not enough to supplement more areas as it quickly dry up’’. This Farmers also explained
that they have learned the concept of drip irrigation and/or supplemental irrigation, water
harvesting activities and wise utilization of water resources, and producing twice a year which is
uncommon in the area before introduction of water harvesting structure and supplemental
irrigation project.
Almost all of the farmers reported as if there are no any problems related to construction of the
ponds on the nearby farmlands of the neighboring farmers. However, some farmers complained
26
about working as daily laborers in the main cropping season; because farmers who own the
ponds are not willing to participate those who don’t have a pond in the daily laborer work. The
daily laborer work earns economic income for participating farmers. In this regard some farmers
said that the presence of the pond would only benefit those who own the pond and see this as a
problem of constructing the pond in their neighborhood. For a farmer in this group, the main
challenge to have a pond is poverty and low annual income as they entirely depend on
subsistence crop production.
3.4.2. Perceptions of farmers who have a pond
This group of farmers have positive attitude about the constructed ponds on their farmlands
because they believe that they are more benefited from selling vegetables/crops produced by
supplemental irrigation than when they depend on rainfed agriculture. The water in these ponds
are used by only the pond owners. Four out of five of these farmers need to have additional
ponds on their farmland. One farmer does not want to have extra ponds because of land scarcity
and the fact that his farmlands are very far from his home.
All of the five farmers believe that their annual income has increased by at-least three folds.
However most of them do not clearly remember how much benefit they have gained in monetary
terms. Despite believing that the ponds are economically beneficial and increase in the annual
income, out of five farmers’ only one farmer from this group was willing to cover costs of extra
pond excavation on his farm land. The rest are not willing to cover the costs of extra ponds as
they believe it is very expensive and don’t have capacity to cover such cost. All the five water
harvesting ponds were excavated and their costs were covered by ICARDA-project. It is
challenging to expand the water harvesting system in the watershed if farmers are not willing to
cover the costs given that the irrigation was beneficial. This circumstance is due to the fact that
the farmers are economically poor and less educated. Moreover, farmers have very limited
knowledge about the benefits they would make from collecting water and use it for irrigation.
27
4. Discussions
4.1. Runoff area delineation, area determination and estimation of water volume
Water harvesting is one of the promising ways of supplementing water resources for desired uses
in areas where existing water supply is inadequate to meet crop demand. It is also one of the
many measures for reducing impact of climate change and variability on water resources (Pandey,
D, 2003). To this end water harvesting structures play a big role in increasing water utilisation
and enhancing the socio-economic sector of the poor farmers living in the dry areas (Chow et al.,
1988). In this study delineation and areas of the runoff area was determined by GIS software.
Geographic information system software is becoming the most popular methods of dealing with
all activities in a watershed (delineation, area determination, characterization etc) for desired
purposes (Setegn, S. G.et.al., 2008, Stuebe, M, 1990). Areas of the four watersheds for this study
were determined by using ArcSWAT for Arc Map 10. According to Stuebe, M. Et al., (1990),
and Van Liew, M, et al., (2007), Arc SWAT is becoming popular and recognised to be the
reliable tool used for delineating watersheds for soil and water conservation activities.
The volume of water produced by a given runoff area is largely dependent on the area, runoff
coefficient and rainfall amount/intensity over the area. Runoff coefficient value ranging from 0.2
to 0.5 was reported by (Shahin, M., 1988) and (Bezawit A., 2011 unpublished) respectively.
Despite the fact that the runoff coefficient values (0.25) used for this study is in between the
reported values by Shahin, M., (1988) and (Bezawit A., (2011), it would be better if someone
calculates the values accurately before making runoff volume calculations in order to get more
reliable results.
According to Araya et al., (2005), “Smallness of a catchment area is found as one of the
technical problems in relation to site selection. Some ponds are constructed with a potential
catchment area which is not sufficient to generate enough runoff to fill the maximum capacity of
the pond”. However, there are enough runoff produced by runoff areas. The pond capacity that
was fixed by researchers from GARC was so small as compared to the available amount of
runoff. Tesfaye et al., (2004), reported that location of the pond relative to the residence is one of
the factors found to explain the sustainable utilization of the ponds. According a study conducted
by this authors, “Out of the 72 pond owners who gave valid response, 84% believe the location is
28
suitable and 16% said the location is wrong. Farmers’ criteria were distance from homestead,
good catchments for collecting water, and availability of sufficient command area. Homestead
location is preferred as far as the command and the catchment areas are sufficient. Another
reason favoring homestead location is its closeness for management and guarding of
vegetables”. In this study farmers would like to have a pond very close to their home.
4.2. Socio economic aspects of using small ponds water harvesting structures
The economic role of water harvesting was reported to be satisfactory according to farmers’
response. In this study all of the farmers who own a pond reported that they have got far better
income than when the ponds were not there. Farmers derive visible economic benefits from
using water harvesting ponds when the technology is appropriately utilized (Tesfay et al., 2004;
Araya et al., 2005). According to Araya et al. (2005) the potential economic benefit from pond
technology was found very much dependent on the type crop choice and irrigation scheduling.
Comparison of water use efficiency of the current irrigation practices of model farmers in
Wukiro and Mehonni areas of the Tigray regional state.
Farmers who do not have pond have also reported that they would be benefited from having the
pond. When asked why they think they will be benefited from using the ponds they replied that
they have seen those farmers who have ponds, sell vegetables and generate incomes.
4.3. Water harvesting systems (small ponds) in context of integrated water
management
Integrated water management is a process of dealing with coordinated management of water,
land and related resources. To this end, implementation of water harvesting system at farm level
will play crucial role in maintaining the water system through effective utilization of the water
resources that would have been lost in the form of runoff. In areas where water harvesting
systems have been implemented, the local peoples start to values for water resources as they
have got experience of wise water resources utilizations which will benefit the whole water
system in the long run. Having a water harvesting system upstream would have effect to the
downstream communities as the water that would normally reach the downstream community
was intercepted and utilized in the upstream. I suggest a new study to be initiated looking into
29
the interactions of the upstream and downstream communities with respect to the utilizations of
water harvesting systems in context of integrated water resources management.
30
5. Conclusions
This study concludes that water harvesting technologies specifically small pond water harvesting
structures will play a prominent role in dry areas where water scarcity is the main issue. When
implemented correctly, small ponds water harvesting systems can boost crop/vegetable
production. This can be reflected by the fact that farmers are reporting economic uses of the
system in terms of income earnings. Farmers tend to show positive attitudes towards using small
ponds water harvesting system. However, as water harvesting technologies transfer and adoption
will always take time it is very early to say all the farmers like the ponds and water harvesting
systems. The amount of runoff produced by the runoff areas are enough to add additional ponds
to be excavated if needed but factors like land size, farmers’ willingness to have the pond should
be considered before advising farmers to have extra or new ponds on their farmlands. This study
implements a very simple cost benefit analysis to see the economic impact of using small ponds
water harvesting system. Therefore studying economic roles of water harvesting systems by
using any other useful and recently developed economic methods would make a more precise
estimation and conclusions. The amount of calculated runoff was estimated based on
assumptions for the runoff coefficient which will largely affect the volume of runoff. I would
suggest further studies to confirm the runoff coefficient values and volume of estimated runoff in
the study area.
31
References
Araya, Alemie, Addissu, Gebrie, and Daniel, Teka, D. 2005. Pond water productivity under the present
use in Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia. MU-DCG project Technical Report Number 4, Mekelle
University, Mekelle.
Awulachew, S. B. (2006). "Improved agricultural water management Assessment of constraints and
opportunities for agricultural development in Ethiopia." Awulachew, SB; Menkir, M.; Abesha, D.;
Atnafe, T: 7-9.
Awulachew, S.B., Yilma, A.D., Luelseged, M., Loiskandl,W., Ayana, M., Alamirew, T. 2007. Water
resources and irrigation development in Ethiopia. Working paper 123, International Water
anagement
Barron, J. (2004). Dry spell mitigation to upgrade semi-arid rainfed agriculture: Water harvesting and soil
nutrient management for smallholder maize cultivation in Machakos, Kenya, Stockholm.
BCEOM 1998. Abbay River basin integrated development master plan project . Volume XIII –
Environment. Minstry of water resources, addis Abeba, Ethiopia. Ministry of Water Resource,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Bewket, W. (2003). Towards integrated watershed management in highland Ethiopia: the Chemoga
watershed case study, Wageningen University and Research Centre.
Bezawit Adane Demisse (2011). Discharge and sediment yield modeling in Enkulal watershed, Lake Tana
region, Ethiopia. A Project Paper Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School Of Cornell
University.
Boers, T. M. (1994). Rainwater harvesting in arid and semi-arid zones, International Institute for Land
Reclamation and Improvement Wageningen.
Boughton, W. C. (1989). A review of the USDA SCS curve number method. Soil Research, 27(3), 511523.
Burns B, 1997, ntroductions to research methods ( 2nd edn), Melbourne Longman Cheshire.
Chow, V., Maidment, D., Mays, L., 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Berkshire, UK
Connelly, M. F., & Clandinin, J. D. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational
Critchley, W. and K. Siegert (1991). "Water harvesting." FAO, Rome, Italy: 133.
Devereux, S. and I. Sussex (2000). Food insecurity in Ethiopia. a DFID Ethiopia Seminar, London.
Janine L Wiles*, Mark W Rosenberg** and Robin A Kearns (2005). Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Narrative
analysis as a strategy for understanding interview talk in geographic research. ISSN 0004-0894 ©
Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers).
Kirpich, Z. P. (1940). “Time of concentration of small agricultural watersheds.” Civil Eng., 10(6), 362–
368.Ministry of agriculture (2002)
Krathwohl, D. R. (1998). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach.
MoWR 2002. Ethiopian water sector strategy. Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.MoARD 2004. Woody biomass inventory and strategic planning project, a national
strategic plan for biomass energy sector. Final report. Ministry of Agriculture and and rural
developmement ( MoARD), Addis ababa, Ethiopia.
Monette, Duan R., Thomas J. Sullivan and Cornell R. Dejong, 1996, applied social research: Tools for the
human services, fourth worth, TX Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
32
Oweis, T. (1997). Supplemental irrigation: a highly efficient water-use practice, Icarda.
Oweis, T. and A. Hachum (2006). "Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water
productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa." Agricultural Water
Management 80(1): 57-73.
Oweis, T. and A. Hachum (2009). "Water harvesting for improved rainfed agriculture in the dry
environments." Rainfed Agriculture: Unlocking the Potential. Comprehensive Assessment of
Water Management in Agriculture Series, CABI, Wallingford, England: 164-181.
Oweis, T., A. Hachum, et al. (1999). Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water use
efficiency in dry areas, Iwmi.
Oweis, T., D. Prinz, et al. (2001). Water harvesting: indigenous knowledge for the future of the drier
environments, ICARDA.
Pandey, D. N., Gupta, A. K., & Anderson, D. M. (2003). Rainwater harvesting as an adaptation to climate
change. Current science, 85(1), 46-59.
Ranjit Kumer (2011). Research methodology. A step-by-step guide for beggners, third edition.SAGE
Publication Ltd.
Researcher, 19(5), 2-14.
Rockström, J., L. Karlberg, et al. (2010). "Managing water in rainfed agriculture—the need for a
paradigm shift." Agricultural Water Management 97(4): 543-550.
Rosegrant, M. W., X. Cai, et al. (2002). World water and food to 2025: dealing with scarcity, International
Food Policy Research Inst.
Sandelowski, M. (1998). Writing a good read: Strategies for re-presenting qualitative data. Research in
Seckler, D., Barker, R., & Amarasinghe, U. (1999). Water scarcity in the twenty-first century.
International Journal of Water Resources Development, 15(1-2), 29-42.
Setegn, S. G., Srinivasan, R., & Dargahi, B. (2008). Hydrological modelling in the Lake Tana Basin,
Ethiopia using SWAT model. The Open Hydrology Journal, 2(2008), 49-62.
Shahin, M., 1988. Hydrology of the Nile basin, International Institute for Hydraulic and Environmental
Engineering. Elsevier, The Netherlands.
Sharma, A. (2002). "Does water harvesting help in water-scarce regions?: a case study of two villages in
Alwar, Rajasthan. IWMI-TATA Water Policy Research Program Annual Partners' Meet, 2002."
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Stuebe, M. M., & Johnston, D. M. (1990). RUNOFF VOLUME ESTIMATION USING GIS
TECHNIQUES1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 26(4), 611-620.
Teka, D., van Wesemael, B., Vanacker, V., Poesen, J., Hallet, V., Taye, G., ... & Haregeweyn, N. (2013).
Evaluating the performance of reservoirs in semi-arid catchments of Tigray: Tradeoff between
water harvesting and soil and water conservation. Catena.
Tesfay, Girmay, Girmay, G/Samuel and Atinkut, Mezgebo. 2004. Preliminary Economic Assessment of
the Household Ponds in Tigray: Case study of three farm households. MU-DCG project Technical
Report Number 2, Mekelle University, Mekelle.
Van Liew, M. W., Veith, T. L., Bosch, D. D., & Arnold, J. G. (2007). Suitability of SWAT for the
conservation effects assessment project: Comparison on USDA agricultural research service
watersheds. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 12(2), 173-189.
33
Viessman, W., Knapp, J.w., and lewis. G.L. 91989). Introduction of hydrology, third ed., Harper and ow,.
Inc., new York, N.Y.
34
Annex-1
Interview questions format
Interview Questions for farmers who own a pond
The aim of this questionnaire is to collect data about perceptions of the farmers about the water
harvesting ponds constructed on farmland
Name ……………………………
Age……………………………… Sex …………………..
Village …………………………..
1. What is your opinion about the ponds?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Do you like the ponds? A) Yes
B) No,
If your answer is yes please justify?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………............
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
3. If your answer to question number 2 is No, please explain your answer.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a pond on your farmland?
Advantages……………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………
35
Disadvantages…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………….
5. Would you like to use the water in the pond for other purposes in addition to supplemental
irrigation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………..
6. Do you like to use another type of irrigation (furrow, sprinkler, others) other than drip
irrigation?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
7. Which types of crops do you like to use for supplemental irrigation? Why?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………
8. Have you ever faced any problem which is related to presence of the pond on your farm
land?
A) Yes B) No, if your answer is yes please list the major problems you have faced?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Have you tried to solve the problems? If yes how?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
36
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………
9. Do you like to have another pond on your farmland? A) Yes B) No
If your answer is No please justify? For what purpose do you think you will use the
additional pond?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………..
10. Do you see any difference in your annual income after you had the pond (now and in the
future)? A) Yes B) No, If yes how much?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
11. Any additional comments?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
37
Interview Questions for farmers who do not own a pond
The aim of this questionnaire is to collect data about perceptions of the farmers about the water
harvesting ponds constructed on farmland
Name ……………………………
Age……………………………… Sex …………
Village …………………………..
1. What is your opinion about the ponds constructed in your locality?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
2. Do you think farmers who own the pond are benefited from having the pond on their
farmlands?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………..
3. What did you learn from the farmers who allow ponds to be constructed on their farm
lands?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
4. Do you like to have a pond of your own? If yes how? If No why?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………….
5. Did you face any problem related to existence of ponds in your locality?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
38
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………..
6. Any additional comments?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………..
39
Annex-2
Reflection report
Introduction
One of the aspects to start with M.Sc. in Environmental Sciences (specializations in Integrated
Water Management) was the opportunity for an internship with duration of 3-4 months. So while
I am working on my M.Sc. thesis at Wageningen University, I was looking for possibilities for an
internship. My preference was to do the internship work in Ethiopia because I wanted to be as
close as possible to my wife who is going to deliver a baby very shortly.
After contacting many peoples who really tried a lot to help me in getting the opportunities, I
come across a possibility of internship position at International Center for Agricultural Research
in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Bahir Dar, Ethiopia coordination office. Thanks to Dr. Yigezu
Atnafu for his effort in getting me to be connected to this position. I met Dr. Yigezu Atnafu
during a workshop on Analysis of Trade-offs in Agricultural Systems which took place in
Wageningen University in February 2013. I was very excited by this opportunity and fly to
Ethiopia to start the internship work. In this report; after describing about the overall internship
work, I will reflect on my internship learning goals, what I have learned from the activities I
carried out and my strengths and weakness.
The internship work
The work is about five water harvesting ponds excavated in Gumara-Maksegnit watershed found
in Gondar Ethiopia. They want me to analyze the water harvesting and supplemental irrigation
works that has been carried out by ICARDA project in the area. They need to know about the
amount of water input and harvested by the five ponds and then how much is used, for what area
and what crop, some optimization of different alternative crops and finally a cost benefit
analysis. Therefore, in order to start the internship work I was asked to write a research proposal
which includes the requested topics. It is always a big challenge to go and pick topics which suits
you leave alone your employer. I have also encountered such problems while I am looking for a
topic for my M.Sc. thesis.
After a lot of reading about water harvesting in Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular I start
to write a proposal on “Technical and Socio-economic Study of Using Small Ponds Water
40
Harvesting System for Supplemental Irrigation in Gumara-Maksegnit Watershed, Ethiopia”. The
proposal development phase went very well. After the proposal has been revised by ICARDA
and Wageningen university representatives I have got go ahead to start the internship work
according to the contract agreement between me, Wageningen university and ICARDA.
Learning goals
I formulated the following four learning goals to be achieved during the internship work.
1. Aware of major technical and social problems related to water harvesting ponds
The fact that I am able to speak Amharic (the local language) helps me a lot in achieving this
learning goal. I always ask farmers about the ponds when I had opportunities. I have asked them
what problems do they faced after the ponds were excavated in their farmland or in the nearby
areas. One of the approaches I have used is to participate in local ceremonies and had an
informal talk to them. I found that most of the farmers are not aware of technical aspects of the
water harvesting ponds as they always seek for explanations of how to and why something is
done this way or that way? One farmer asked me why the silt traps were necessary to be
constructed near the ponds. However, most of the farmers believe that there is no social problem
related to the ponds. I have even give them example I have read from literature that ponds
constructed near living homes can be a potential site for reproduction of mosquitoes which
causes malaria.
Technically the ponds look good. However, the lining material ( geomembrane) was supposed to
serve for at-least five years. The fact is that geomembrane linings in the three of the five ponds
was changed with the new one each year. A gemembrane cost 5000 ETB and this not affordable
by farmers if it has to be changed each year. The major causes of the breakage of the
geomembrane linings are careless throwing of stones (especially large stones) and wooden
thrushes to the pond by children, rats, and slide of the earthen wall of the pond due to in
appropriate site/soil type selections. I can say I have achieved this learining goal very well and
all the methods I have used were successful.
41
Local ceremony in a farmer house
drinking local beer and eating with farmers
2. Learn how water and water system is conserved and managed in a watershed
Regarding this learning observing some water conservation activities other than water harvesting
ponds was one of the methods I have used. There are a lot of terraces and different soil and water
conservation activities constructed throughout the watershed which shows local peoples as well
as other stakeholders are doing what they should do to manage the watershed. Farmers try to
manage water resources individually or collectively. Management wise the water resources were
poorly managed specifically before the water harvesting activities were introduced by ICARDA.
3. Learn the interaction of stakeholders in managing a watershed
The major stakeholders involved in the management of the watershed are farmers, ICARDA
project, zonal office of agriculture, Gondar agricultural research center etc. ICARDA was
mandated to manage water system in order to optimize water uses for agriculture while
implementing government plans for agricultural water management is the mandate of zonal
office of agriculture. Gondar agricultural research center was mandated to do research on
irrigation, soil and water conservation as well as crop adaptation activities. In most cases the
coordination between these stakeholders does not looks good. I have worked mostly with
ICARDA and Gondar agricultural research center.
42
4. To be able to do water balance analysis
This learning goal is on progress. I have to collect water level data to do the water balance
analysis and I am confident that after collecting the data I will be able to do the analysis.
What I have learned
What I have learned the most from this internship are collection of field data (geographic
coordinate points), measurements of siltation, delineation of a given watershed using
Theodolite/GPS. Besides these, I have also learned a lot about analysis of gepgraphic
information systems using GIS software, area determinations and assessments of cost and
benefits of water harvesting structures. I recognized that these skills are very important in my
future life as an integrated water management professional. I felt satisfied that I could apply the
skills/insights I gained in the future.
Another learning outcome of this internship was that being able to conduct interview. It is my
first time that I have interviewed farmers and I was delighted that it goes very well. I didn’t
encounter any problem during interview. However, during delineation work; I have come across
a farmer who almost going to hit me and becomes very angry at me because I was putting bench
marks (to collect geographic coordinate points) around his land where he graze his cows. He was
afraid and suspected that the delineated land will be taken out by us. It was a breathtaking
moment which disturbed me and my surveying team. However, I have explained to him calmly
that I am doing the delineation only for the purposes of estimating the volume of water produced
by the delineated area and assured him that no one is going to touch his land without his notice. I
never become angered by the situation because I recognized that it is beyond his knowledge that
he know what we are doing without explanation.
Strengths and weaknesses
The strengths in this internship work which I experienced are dedication, perseverance during
field data collection which was a very challenging moment. I remember the day that we were hit
by rain falling for about two hours. In relation to my professional development, this internship
contributes to an insight in the integrated water management in Ethiopia.
During the internship I experienced also some weaknesses, which I have to consider in my future
career. Because I was so dedicated to the field work (data collection), I have a problems of
43
making a good planning which includes sufficient time for writing the report. As a result, less
attention was paid to the development of scientific writing skills. Now I am aware of this, I have
to give priority to this part of the work. I think I can achieve this by clear definition of the time I
have to spend in the field.
44